1. I changed the focus from universal to basic by a small edit in my previous comment. (Literally just changed universal to basic.) I kind of already knew that before but you've made it clearer to me. Basic means assuring everyone has some minimum. It does not mean everyone gets it, though that could be done at some minimal le…
1. I changed the focus from universal to basic by a small edit in my previous comment. (Literally just changed universal to basic.) I kind of already knew that before but you've made it clearer to me. Basic means assuring everyone has some minimum. It does not mean everyone gets it, though that could be done at some minimal level.
2. You are right that what AK suggested, something like $5k for a family of four, could be done. I should have addressed that in this thread. As I mentioned the last time he proposed that, it would be a huge drop in resources focused on the poor. Medicaid spending alone (which reimburses Drs. and hospitals less than Medicare or any any private insurance) is over $5k/adult and something close to that for kids. Ending that subsidy along with housing, food, and everything else would mean 18.8% of the population (who gets Medicaid) would get a huge drop in support. AK's UBI would be a new minimum in the sense that it would take away most of the support currently given to low income people. If that's what you want, fine, but we are talking about completely different scenarios.
Ok, finally we’re getting a bit closer to an actual conversation.
You now understand that you are NOT advocating for a UBI, you are advocating for the addition of a “BI” (Basic Income) welfare program for the poor.
Are you suggesting this as an addition, on top of all the existing federal welfare programs? If not are you suggesting it as a net addition to welfare spending or a net neutral?
Where does the phaseout / cutoff occur? Do you here stand that by making it targeted at only those you deem “poor / deserving” that it will create even HIGHER marginal tax rates on the poor? (Unless, of course, you can eliminate those programs that have the worst effects on marginal tax rates for the poor)?
BTW, while AK proposed a relatively miserly UBI, he didn’t do so to save federal taxpayers dollars spent. (He did it to provide additional incentives to work by removing the significance disincentives towards work of the current system.) His solution for the deserving poor is to provide additional federal money to states and local charities who are much better able to determine who is and is not “deserving” than is any government, and especially the Federal government.
While I am not 100% in agreement with AK on this, I am indeed very broadly aligned.
If you , OTOH, are talking about simply adding a target BI for “the poor”, then you are at almost complete odds with him and me, and we have literally nothing left to discuss.
If you are talking about doing your BI by replacing some other federal welfare programs, then I suppose it’s *possible* you could do it without making the high marginal tax rate problem causing massive disincentive to work and climb the income ladder *worse*, but it would be very difficult to make that problem materially *better*. And in fact addressing that problem is at the core of what AK - and myself - would like to address.
If you *are* indeed interested in addressing that problem, please tell me how anything akin to what I understand is your proposal might do that, and we can continue.
(For me the most difficult issue by far is Medicaid, and prior to looking into it based on this conversation, I had not realized what a larger percentage of the issue Medicaid is.
The rest of it, however politically unlikely it would be that we could get there in the foreseeable future, is straightforward to do to improve the situation and radically reduce the immorality and injustice that it is the poor who face almost all of the highest marginal tax rates in this country, regardless of the good intentions of those who created the current situation.)
Two things:
1. I changed the focus from universal to basic by a small edit in my previous comment. (Literally just changed universal to basic.) I kind of already knew that before but you've made it clearer to me. Basic means assuring everyone has some minimum. It does not mean everyone gets it, though that could be done at some minimal level.
2. You are right that what AK suggested, something like $5k for a family of four, could be done. I should have addressed that in this thread. As I mentioned the last time he proposed that, it would be a huge drop in resources focused on the poor. Medicaid spending alone (which reimburses Drs. and hospitals less than Medicare or any any private insurance) is over $5k/adult and something close to that for kids. Ending that subsidy along with housing, food, and everything else would mean 18.8% of the population (who gets Medicaid) would get a huge drop in support. AK's UBI would be a new minimum in the sense that it would take away most of the support currently given to low income people. If that's what you want, fine, but we are talking about completely different scenarios.
Ok, finally we’re getting a bit closer to an actual conversation.
You now understand that you are NOT advocating for a UBI, you are advocating for the addition of a “BI” (Basic Income) welfare program for the poor.
Are you suggesting this as an addition, on top of all the existing federal welfare programs? If not are you suggesting it as a net addition to welfare spending or a net neutral?
Where does the phaseout / cutoff occur? Do you here stand that by making it targeted at only those you deem “poor / deserving” that it will create even HIGHER marginal tax rates on the poor? (Unless, of course, you can eliminate those programs that have the worst effects on marginal tax rates for the poor)?
BTW, while AK proposed a relatively miserly UBI, he didn’t do so to save federal taxpayers dollars spent. (He did it to provide additional incentives to work by removing the significance disincentives towards work of the current system.) His solution for the deserving poor is to provide additional federal money to states and local charities who are much better able to determine who is and is not “deserving” than is any government, and especially the Federal government.
While I am not 100% in agreement with AK on this, I am indeed very broadly aligned.
If you , OTOH, are talking about simply adding a target BI for “the poor”, then you are at almost complete odds with him and me, and we have literally nothing left to discuss.
If you are talking about doing your BI by replacing some other federal welfare programs, then I suppose it’s *possible* you could do it without making the high marginal tax rate problem causing massive disincentive to work and climb the income ladder *worse*, but it would be very difficult to make that problem materially *better*. And in fact addressing that problem is at the core of what AK - and myself - would like to address.
If you *are* indeed interested in addressing that problem, please tell me how anything akin to what I understand is your proposal might do that, and we can continue.
(For me the most difficult issue by far is Medicaid, and prior to looking into it based on this conversation, I had not realized what a larger percentage of the issue Medicaid is.
The rest of it, however politically unlikely it would be that we could get there in the foreseeable future, is straightforward to do to improve the situation and radically reduce the immorality and injustice that it is the poor who face almost all of the highest marginal tax rates in this country, regardless of the good intentions of those who created the current situation.)